(12-01-2013 06:51 AM)Vera Wrote: It's just that this particular path inevitably leads to just throwing out everyone with whom we don't agree.

I think these suggestions were out of mere procedural sentiment. I'm sure IPs are checked without us suggesting which accounts should be investigated. Nami isn't good enough of a troll for us to find excuses to throw him out, but it doesn't hurt to figure out if he has been breaking the rules through sockpuppeting. If he has, he gets banned, if he hasn't then he is left alone. People already seem to be ignoring him now for the most part anyway.

(12-01-2013 06:51 AM)Vera Wrote: It's just that this particular path inevitably leads to just throwing out everyone with whom we don't agree.

I think these suggestions were out of mere procedural sentiment. I'm sure IPs are checked without us suggesting which accounts should be investigated. Nami isn't good enough of a troll for us to find excuses to throw him out, but it doesn't hurt to figure out if he has been breaking the rules through sockpuppeting. If he has, he gets banned, if he hasn't then he is left alone. People already seem to be ignoring him now for the most part anyway.

Does this mean that everybody's IP's get checked then? Or just the ones we don't like? Why should we check his IP in particular?

I would think it's when similarities in posts are seen that it sparks a look into IP addresses. By that I mean the weird, off-the-wall, and certainly super-controversial issues posts. We often don't see a couple people that will immediately agree on things like necrophilia or the owning of slaves or kid-bashing. Sometimes a couple posters will show up with eerily similar posting styles.

Several years ago I belonged to a forum that had a member that went completely off the rails breaking nearly every rule. She was savvy enough to keep getting on with new identities but not savvy enough to fix her habitual spelling errors. She was pretty easy to spot. It got kind of funny after a time...you would think she's have figured out what was giving her away.

(12-01-2013 10:41 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote: I think these suggestions were out of mere procedural sentiment. I'm sure IPs are checked without us suggesting which accounts should be investigated. Nami isn't good enough of a troll for us to find excuses to throw him out, but it doesn't hurt to figure out if he has been breaking the rules through sockpuppeting. If he has, he gets banned, if he hasn't then he is left alone. People already seem to be ignoring him now for the most part anyway.

Does this mean that everybody's IP's get checked then? Or just the ones we don't like? Why should we check his IP in particular?

There is a basic rule that runs within social groups that those who are labeled as deviant are subjected to higher levels of surveillance. It isn't a flawless inclination by any stretch, and in larger groups (such as society as a whole), it can actually cause more problems than it solves.

However, this is a forum, and his deviancy is simply petty trolling, nothing big. That's still enough to warrant higher levels of scrutiny, even if all that means is a simple IP check. I do agree though that this wasn't the thread to call for it. A pm to an admin would have been a better idea.

(12-01-2013 10:41 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote: I think these suggestions were out of mere procedural sentiment. I'm sure IPs are checked without us suggesting which accounts should be investigated. Nami isn't good enough of a troll for us to find excuses to throw him out, but it doesn't hurt to figure out if he has been breaking the rules through sockpuppeting. If he has, he gets banned, if he hasn't then he is left alone. People already seem to be ignoring him now for the most part anyway.

Does this mean that everybody's IP's get checked then? Or just the ones we don't like? Why should we check his IP in particular?

No, we engage in profiling. Profiling works.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.